[Total War] In-Progress Scenario List - UPDATED

Chroma

Post subject: [Total War] In-Progress Scenario List - UPDATED

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:04 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pmPosts: 9682Location: Boston, MA, USA

Okay, just to show some of the scope of the "EPIC: Total War" project, here's a tentative list of the "generic" scenarios to be included; each will have different sceanario rules and setups that will allow for a wide variety of battles to be fought, even just in "pick up" games.

Additionally, you'll be able to tailor scenarios to, I hope, represent almost any kind of campaign conflict you can imagine. One of the plans for the supplement is to have a "historic refight" based on each one of the scenarios as an example of how they can be customized.

Now, they are all in various states of work, and this is just a list of names, without any explanation. One thing I'd like you, Gentle Reader, to do, is note if any obvious scenario or mission is missing!

I don't know if you already have this covered (it's hard to tell without descriptions), but how about a Bastogne-type scenario?

So... which part of Bastogne? *laugh*

The Ardennes Offensive could be represented by a Spearhead or No Man's Land Scenario, with Rearguard and Strongpoint Attacks following up as the battle progresses. And then a Rescue to secure the 101st (Not that they needed it! )

Remember that these scenarios are meant to be, at their basic level, fairly "generic", but to allow a lot of customization if desired.

I have two campaign style "battle generators" that I am working on for Space and continental conflicts. The basic premise being to fight several battles with the same resources rather than the traditional 'one-off' conflicts inherent with most/all of these scenarios.

I have two campaign style "battle generators" that I am working on for Space and continental conflicts. The basic premise being to fight several battles with the same resources rather than the traditional 'one-off' conflicts inherent with most/all of these scenarios.

Well, I'm working on a "campaign system" as well, that the scenarios can be slotted in to to provide continuity and rewards/penalties for winning or losing as the campaign progresses.

I will Pm both you and Moscovian shortly. However they both work on the same principle of having a limited geography of 'areas' between the 'Home bases' each representing a battlefield. The two sides pick army lists representing the total pool of formations available, battle casualties being fed back at the Home base.

The Space campaign differs in requiring some points to be spent on the means of transporting the armies from planet to planet treating each as a distinct battlefield, while the "continental" campaign is a little more complex, recognising the interaction between adjoining areas.

Remember that these scenarios are meant to be, at their basic level, fairly "generic", but to allow a lot of customization if desired.

All of them are supposed to be generic? If that is the case I think you'll be limiting your project considerably and unnecessarily IMO. It is nice to have generic ideas, don't get me wrong, but there are people who are going to want something specific as well (Dwarf Supreme is the prime example).

When I started mulling over this idea independently from you (why do I feel like we're Newton and Leibniz?) I envisioned something that would break down as follows:

Now, as we've spoken abot before, we have to be careful not to step on the toes of current endeavors (i.e. other supplements in the planning stages) but there are some considerable opportunities to makes things for the core lists that never quite made it into Armageddon.

All of the "basic" scenarios are supposed to be, for the most part, generic; so much so, that you could meet another player who had brought a 3000 point Tournament army and say, for example, "Let's play an Ambush instead!" and would be able to do that. Ã‚Â There will be a host of "scenario modifying" rules, like the Planetary Conditions I released, to allow a wide variety of customization.

From there, each scenario will have a "historic refight" based on its premise, with story and setup and forces.

On top of all that will be a, or possibly multiple, campaign system(s) for integrating scenarios into a plausible and challenging campaign: small, medium, large, or monstrous, as desired. See the "Red Queen Rising" campaign as an example of what I'm talking about.

All of them are supposed to be generic? Ã‚Â If that is the case I think you'll be limiting your project considerably and unnecessarily IMO. Ã‚Â It is nice to have generic ideas, don't get me wrong, but there are people who are going to want something specific as well (Dwarf Supreme is the prime example). Ã‚Â

I actually think the opposite would be the case - generic scenarios would allow more players to use them, would they not? And depending on how the "historic refights" are presented, they could allow players to recreate a set battle as well.

Drek, I was just thinking in a grand scheme. Ã‚Â Obviously generic would be more broad reaching, but we're talking about building an entire supplement on these scenarios. If you have nothing but generic situations it is akin to buying a 5 gallon tub of vanilla. Ã‚Â Vanilla is the most popular icecream flavor in the world, but how often do you go for a double scoop of vanilla? My guess is not very often.

A supplement on something like this should reach a broad audience and as such historical re-creations and other ideas I presented above could be presented in each section and provide a ton of ideas.

All of the "basic" scenarios are supposed to be, for the most part, generic; so much so, that you could meet another player who had brought a 3000 point Tournament army and say, for example, "Let's play an Ambush instead!" and would be able to do that. Ã‚Â There will be a host of "scenario modifying" rules, like the Planetary Conditions I released, to allow a wide variety of customization.

From there, each scenario will have a "historic refight" based on its premise, with story and setup and forces.

On top of all that will be a, or possibly multiple, campaign system(s) for integrating scenarios into a plausible and challenging campaign: small, medium, large, or monstrous, as desired. Ã‚Â See the "Red Queen Rising" campaign as an example of what I'm talking about.

And then, there will be a few playable "smaller" campaigns.

And, lastly, alternate/advanced rules for variant play experience.

Your Red Queen Rising idea is actually what got me thinking that a series of campaign ideas could be presented in the same tome. Ã‚Â

Here is where I am coming from: something like this has to be a collaborative effort to get done in any reasonable period of time. Ã‚Â It makes no sense for two or more people to be working on different projects when they can all fall under the same umbrella. Ã‚Â The layouts, pictures, artwork, text, backgrounds, references, those are all just the beginning. Ã‚Â The playtesting that will go into something like this will need to be big. Ã‚Â Ideally you'll want at least three playtest games for each scenario which means a lot of people will be needed. Ã‚Â The best way to get people to help is to have them playtesting the ideas they come up with (or at least the ones they like the most).

Chroma, is there anything on the list I put together above that you don't like? If not, then we have an outline. Ã‚Â The ultimate goal here is to produce a book, after all, not a 50 page pamphlet. Ã‚Â Correct me if I am wrong. Ã‚Â IMO we have plenty of room to put some meat on the bones. Ã‚Â If we start hitting 160 pages THEN we can start looking to trim the fat. Ã‚Â For now though, I would think setting a limit for how many campaigns (or how many anything) is a bad idea.

Perhaps breaking up the work into separate project leaders?

For that matter, if a person wanted to write up a small fiction to go with their campaign then by all means do so! Ã‚Â If you had a piece of (non-GW) artwork that inspired your idea, reach out to that artist and ask for permission to use it. Ã‚Â There is some incredible potential in this book (UGH, Total War, can we vote on this title please?!) and I think anyone who has an idea should throw it out there.

The ultimate goal here is to produce a book, after all, not a 50 page pamphlet. Ã‚Â Correct me if I am wrong. Ã‚Â

Well, considering I'm already at about 60 pages, before any pre-made campaigns, I think it's a book in the making... *laugh*

Perhaps you've misunderstood what I meant by "generic" scenarios: what I mean is that *any* armies can play them, there's no requirements such as "Orks vs Marines" for any of them, they can all be played as standalone "one-offs" if so desired. But that doesn't mean they're "vanilla" by any means! There's unbalanced forces, opposed victory conditions, near hopeless situations, etc... things that really change up the game! The "historic re-fights" based on the scenarios will be more restrictive, as refights are.

These scenarios, and the rules to modify them, are to act as the "bedrock" of building a campaign of whatever size you like, playing the significant, and insignificant, battles of a conflict within a balancing framework.

And then there's rules for fighting in all kinds of conditions... from airless moons, to ash-storm lashed deserts, to actions on space hulks! And everything in between (even sunny, friendly worlds!).

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum